Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Saturday, July 13, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Assorted Stuff

Yet another out-of-the-box solution:

LIMIT CAMPAIGN RECEIVING. So the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want on political campaigns because, after all, they're people just like us. If you and I can spend $100 million getting someone elected, why shouldn't a corporation?

You don't think that's fair?

Well, if it isn't, there's still something we can do. Just because there can't be any campaign spending limits doesn't mean there can't be any campaign receiving limits.

Just put limits on the amount of money any media outlet can receive from anyone for political ads.

There may be a right to speak - i.e. spend money - but there's no requirement that anyone must listen - i.e. take the money.

SUE THE STUDENTS. In the current issue of California Bar Journal, bar president Howard Miller notes an interesting problem - a lot of law students who don't get any practical experience in law school can't get that experience after they graduate either because there aren't enough entry-level jobs.

It used to be that you learned theory in school and how to actually do things in starter jobs with law firms or public agencies. Now, says Miller, "the model has lost its training wheels."

I, naturally, have the answer to this problem: sue any student entering law school. There's got to be something they've done wrong and if they haven't, make something up.

It will then be the job of upperclassmen to defend or sue the freshmen (who, in turn, will be observing the process).

To make it somewhat more lifelike, each case should take about three years to resolve.

But if you settle, you get extra credit.

IMPRESSIVE RESUME. Some people have astonishing qualifications.

The following is from a Los Angeles Superior Court suit filed on behalf of a young musician who claimed he was defrauded by an experienced music industry exec:

"Unlike plaintiff, Guess is an experienced music industry veteran ... serving as a creative and/or marketing director ... for such music heavyweights as Kanye West and Jay-Z. Guess has also worked with other music superstars such at Eminem and Green Day.... He is married to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model."

You can't get any more impressive than that.

DESPERATE LITIGATION. I'm not sure what to make of this, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.

As you may know, actress Nicollette Sheridan sued the producers and creator of "Desperate Housewives" for firing her from the show. About midway through the complaint, there's this sentence: "Cherry's treatment of Sheridan, including his physical assault and battery of her, occurred because he is a homosexual man and she is a heterosexual woman."

Of course. They're natural enemies. "Will and Grace" was propaganda.

I've looked at an enormous number of harassment lawsuits and it's pretty much always heterosexual guys assaulting women.

More and more, society realizes that gay people are just the same as anyone else.

Isn't social progress wonderful?

By the way, since they killed off Sheridan's character on "Housewives," settlement - or mitigation of damages -- should be interesting.

I recommend reinstatement as an evil twin.

Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.